65 Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants

Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants

Posted on March 17, 2009 by


Russian mobile nuclear station

Not many know, but Russian engineers have constructed the mobile nuclear power plants that were sucessfully used in distant parts of Russia. Those were small sized self moving fully functional atomic power plants with a small reactor inside. Just imagine, small nuclear power plants that could reach the destination points by themselves.
There were two basic models - tracked and on regular wheels.


Across the network:

loading...

Russian mobile nuclear station 2

Russian mobile nuclear station 3

Advertisement


Across the network:

65 Responses to “Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants”

    • Bruce Willis (AAAH) says:

      GGrrrrrrrr…

      • OMG Russians are so poor that they can not afford Western solar panels to use them in the north, so they have to use dirty nuclear thingies :-(

        • Spooker says:

          I think will be of little use to use solar panels in parts of Russia within the artic circle for example, 6 months of dark…..

          Interesting thing those nuclear reactors, how much shielding did these things had? and how much power they generate?

  1. brbrbr says:

    google about nuke-powered strategic bomber[aka Bear].
    or nuclear tank prototype.

    • George says:

      Kirov,

      There have been many aeroplanes with nuclear weaponry. The very first was a B-29 called Enola Gay. The USSR got nuclear armed planes next, then the UK, then France. All this is ancient history.

      Several nations developed a nuclear artillery shell – which could in principle have led to use by tanks, if designed for the job.

      Both the USA and USSR worked on nuclear powered aeroplanes.

      And apparently also on nuclear powered tanks:

      After all, the USSR did deploy these things:

  2. Jason says:

    If 1 of those blew up around the kremlin in the early 80s, the cold war would for sure be over!

  3. Henke says:

    Chernobyl was a poorly built, poorly managed and very unfortunate incident. The RMBK-reactor had clear flaws, some not known at the time, other neglected by the Soviet command.

    Despite being an example of the absolute worst possible outcome of nuclear power, it does not rank even remotely close to nuclear weapons.

    A better example of what happens during a reactor core meltdown is what happened in Harrisburg, USA, where, despite the reactor suffering a catastrophic failure, nobody died. Not in the facility, not on the outside, in fact to this date, 30 years later, there have not been a single fatality caused by the incident at Three Mile Island. Just a heads up in case there are any that draw incorrect paralells between nuclear power and nuclear holocaust.

    • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

      Dear friend,

      Thank you for this insightful and helpful reassurance. I’ve been saying the same thing about nukes to my people, but they still act nervous, kind of like the cat when Mr. Soon is out looking for meat for his Chinese restaurant.

      I will pass your analysis to them in hopes it will calm them and persuade them, along with other methods of persuasion I employ, to FINISH MY NUCLEAR MISSILE!

      Sorry for the outburst.

      Yours in advanced nuclear technology,
      M. Ahmadinejad

      • bilosh says:

        Mr President Evil Nation

        1st come nuclear power plaant THEN come the nuclear missile becausing this is how fissionable material is produced.

        you must tell subjects of evil nation that Mr Soon always gets cat. Do they reaaly believe MR Soon has access to Pork or BEEf?

        Good Luck
        Bilosh

    • Kirov says:

      Henke, Chernobyl was a “poorly built, poorly managed and very unfortunate incident”? You only got one of those right, the last one.

      • Timo says:

        Kirov, I don’t know what you would call poorly managed, but how about these: The plant managers had signed a paper stating the they had a piece of safety equipment (voltage regulator for the primary coolant pumps) which in reality wasn’t finished nor tested – exactly the same device that was to be tested in April 1986. The test was to be conducted on the phase of the fuel cycle in which the damage to the environment would be greatest if something went wrong. The test was conducted at a time when a shift change (evening to night) took place. The night shift was not informed of the test nor of the correct procedure. Automatic safeties were overridden by manual control far beyond safety regulation limits (that this was possible is IMO a serious design flaw). Not to mention the fact that the plant managers didn’t have experience nor qualifications in running an RBMK reactor.

        And as for “poorly built”… perhaps the quality of the work was reasonable, but there were (are) several design flaws in the whole RBMK concept that cause severe safety risks, which unfortunately were realized on an April night in Ukraine.

        • EC says:

          “Not to mention the fact that the plant managers didn’t have experience nor qualifications in running an RBMK reactor.”

          This sounds like total nonsense to me. More likely, Chernobyl was a CIA operation; designed at targeting the Soviet nuclear programme, causing civilian deaths and illness, damaging military operations, and encouraging wider political, social and economic effects.

      • James says:

        No, all three are correct. The crew deliberately disregarded safety protocols in order to run a test the reactor wasn’t capable of performing. The RBMK design was a disaster waiting to happen, since shutting it down caused a momentary power spike, which is what caused the core to undergo steam explosion and physically blow its lid off.

    • Adventurer says:

      Have a read of:-

      Alla Yaroshinskaya
      The big lie
      The secret Chernobyl documents

      http://www.eurozine.com

  4. brbrbr says:

    RBMK is 2 generation of reactor, really obsolete design, but not prinicipe. such typie of reactor – use- still used in many countries, such as UIS or UK.
    ironically, after ’86, reactor development and production of new[more safer, more efficient, more compact and cheap(to be exact, 6 new types), halted.

    p.s.
    but RBMK is far more eeffective, than VVER series.
    say tnx 2 mr Gorbachev about Chernobyl – thie happen under him pressure. and First Energia launch with Star Wars-realted combat platform, which is in operational stat, signal to begin of WWWIII, aslso sabotaged by him[and hanchmans]on Baykonur launch facility.

    • Spooker says:

      The Polyus (Skif-DM) malfunctioned but to prove that Gorbachev sabotage the system is impossible. But ¨Gorbie¨ was afraid that the system could jeopardize its campaing against American star wars.

      Altough a testbed, that could be the precedent for fully operational anti-satellite weapons in space.

    • to brbrbr: lunch facility kalled cafeteria, you know now.

      ps
      no nuke for the kook, more we get, but kept foods new crispie

    • EC says:

      Western reactors of a similar early series have/had design flaws too. But the design flaws of the RBMK were not fatal and not the cause of the Chernobyl accident: that was pure sabotage.

    • EC says:

      “ironically, after ’86, reactor development and production of new[more safer, more efficient, more compact and cheap(to be exact, 6 new types), halted.”

      Nice work, CIA.

  5. brbrbr says:

    i mean, ’86 and ’87 is cost payd this traitor to prevent Apocalypse.

  6. YJ says:

    This unit would help out a lot if it was put into Red Alert game.

  7. w says:

    I like your animated gif can you put more of these in future :)

  8. [...] kidding right? The Russians used to build portable nuclear power stations and drive them around the country? That is just too freaky for words. And they stopped using them [...]

  9. brbrbr says:

    thery such NOT other options for remote areas, power supply.
    deep below polar cirle[if city-facility not humilating low power consumption, which is rarely a option, like usage oil and gas for that case].
    i mean if you plan to work SERIOUSLY anywher , w/o infrastructure – you REALLY need such product[displayed - VERY obsolete].

  10. [...] I don’t know how credible this is, or whether it was just planned and never built, but check out this Sovet nuclear reactor on tank treads: [...]

  11. Helga from Finland says:

    I wish we had nuclear power plants in Finland. We are so dumb we still burn wood for heat and we dont know what electricity is. I wish I could type more but I need to crank up my generator to finish this senten

  12. [...] Problems: Build Mobile Nuclear Reactors Publié par TreeHugger Le March – 18 – 2009 englishrussia After all, alternative energy is huge now, and in World War II Detroit retooled from cars to tanks [...]

  13. [...] Chernobyl, Russian engineers deployed autonomous nuclear power plants to remote locations, many of which rode on self-powered tank treads. [via Red Ferret] [...]

    • s.a.m. says:

      energy costs keep going up without end. So this looks like
      a more economical way to produce power, I like this tracked
      vehicle that produces power, better than my solar cells and batteries, dont get enough sunshine, plus need enough kilowatts to run house and for heating in the winter, 20kw should do it?
      here is the question? were to get mobile power vehicle for cheap, maybe surplus? p.s. every house should have it own power, not depend on the corporations for endless dollars.

  14. bilosh says:

    I employ older version of this vehicle to provide power to goat farm. for several years small lamp on dashboard has illuminated. It say: “Warning! Check Coolant!” Should I have concern?

  15. iceberg zilbershtein says:

    nuclear reactors do not detonate in an atomic bomb explosion, they simply do not have enough material for a reaction.
    all the reactors do is produce heat.

    in the chernobyl reactor, overheating led to vapor explosion of the core, there was no ATOMIC BOMB explosion, think of it more like a pressurecooker exploding, or heat a can of food or soda on the stove…

    it would be nice if the author removed the last image of the explosion, as it is inaccurate and feeds dangerous stereotypes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

  16. brbrbr says:

    Central Comitee Party commision[there a special det 4 this task for years] and KGB-FSK couldn’t agree with “impossiblity” to prove such facts, but this fact held under some significant reason.
    Gorby involnment was inderenct – he, of course not personally phone power station personell and threatened-opress them, but manage and supervist this and other[very, very, very interesting activity].

  17. [...] english rusia Si te gustó este post, agrega tec.nologia a tu lector RSS [...]

  18. Jason says:

    In a nuclear bomb, plutonium or uranium combine together with another chemical to split the atoms causing intense heat equal to the power of the sun.

    Bombs are detonated before they hit the ground to create the most distruction to a city.

    • Timo says:

      Nuclear explosion is not a chemical reaction. The (fission) bomb works on the chain reaction principle: a neutron splits a heavy nucleus (e.g. uranium-235), which releases two smaller nuclei, two or three neutrons and lots of energy. These neutrons can then split other nuclei, and thus the chain reaction feeds itself. No other elements are required.

      Of course, in order to initiate the reaction, chemical explosives are used to place the fissile atoms close enough to each other to start and sustain the chain reaction (the implosion-type bomb). There are also other ways, like the gun method used in Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb).

  19. altima says:

    the GIF is fun but misleading. this can not happen to a nuke powerplant.

  20. Anon says:

    Russian engineers are gods… doing these things in the Soviet times and forgotten minutes later. Anybody who knows what engineering means will understand this. I love the decadence.

  21. atrium says:

    Ah, yes, the “Chermobile”

  22. bob says:

    The US tried to make nuke powered planes too and test flew them but they were deemed too dangerous

  23. Kirov Class says:

    A string of unfourtenate incidents = catastrophe.

    No, I wouldn’t call the reactor poorly managed (relative to others, even in the west), but simply very unlucky. There are flaws everywhere.

    And poorly built – it was a new RBMK design if I remember, so there would be flaws.

    • George says:

      Kirov,

      RBMK type reactors were only designed by the USSR. Nuclear reactors in the UK (and all other nations with non-Soviet reactors AFAIK) ‘do a Chernobyl’ if only because the reactor cores are in all designs surrounded by very strong pressure vessels designed to contain any ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’.

      The USSR decreed that because the RMBK design was so safe, money could be saved by omitting such a containment vessel from the design. That was a management failure which had catastrophic consequences when the worst happened. A lot of nuclear reactor core ended up scattering itself all around the globe.

      The USSR, unlike the UK, France, and USA, did not insist that engineers working in nuclear plants were trained in nuclear engineering. That was a management failure which directly caused the explosion.

      It was a poor design, poorly maintained, and operated by people who due to poor management did not fully understand its principles of operation.

      The commissioning process of any power plant of an established design should result in a nearly perfect power plant being handed over from the commissioning team to the operational engineers. It is how these things are done conventionally, although with sloppy Soviet management, who can tell in this case?

      The Chernobyl reactor that blew up was a poor design operated by engineers who did not understand it. You do not need to have flaws in construction for a disaster to occur.

      When the disaster happens, it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with

      • EC says:

        True, not having a containment vessel was a mistake – especially with CIA agents running around the place.

        As for the greatness of Western reactors, see Fukushima.

  24. [...] The Answer To Detroit’s Problems: Build Mobile Nuclear Reactors englishrussia [...]

  25. [...] wrzucił link na Flakera English Russia » Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants englishrussia.com/?p=2355#more-2355 wykup reklamę [...]

  26. [...] 6) Atomenergiával hajtott katonai járművek Az orosz mérnökök több olyan járművet is kifejlesztettek, amelyeket konkrétan atomenergia hajtott: az ország távoli csücskeiben használták őket. Baleset hivatalosan nem történt, de a csernobili katasztrófa után leszerelték a masinákat. [...]

  27. [...] Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants http://englishrussia.com [...]

  28. Jay says:

    Chernobyl didn’t experience a nuclear detonation, it experienced a graphite explosion. If you look at the pictures of Chernobyl, you’ll notice it still exists, where the whole site would have been vapourised if a nuclear explosion had taken place.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually Chernobyl power planet leaked, and it caused radiation to leak in the city; The military had no choice but to evacuate the city. Immediately after the leak, the military and city personnel tried to seal the plant, they eventually were able to seal it before a nuclear detonation. But because so much radiation had already leaked citizens or Chernobyl were allowed to go back to their homes. Luckily today they use very good technology to quickly seal a plant if there is ever a leak. And after Chernobyl most reactors are built underground and the coolant system is built on the surface.

  29. Kuba says:

    IIRC, the worry with Chernobyl was that due to a raging conventional graphite fire, the core will melt and the uranium will pool at the very bottom, and exceed the critical mass.

    As for the explosion, it wasn’t a “graphite explosion”. Common precursors to exploding graphite are: mixing graphite dust with air, or using it in black powder of sorts. None of those existed within the Chernobyl reactor.

    Chernobyl was a good old steam explosion, probably coincident with a hydrogen explosion. The cooling water would immediately disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen when it contacted white-hot core rods, and methinks that the core was warm enough to do that.

  30. Moe DeLaun says:

    The U.S. Army also built and tested a portable nuclear reactor in the early 1960’s. It was a unique system: a nuclear gas-turbine generator running at 9 atmospheres, with the dual goal of forward-based power generation and synthetic fuel cracking! The whole system packed up into six standard containers for air, rail or truck transport. Development issues, then-low fuel costs and the Vietnam War killed the project in the mid-60’s.

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/nov95/ML-1.html

  31. Yoron says:

    To be proud over a malfunctioning nuclear plant don’t seem that smart to me. If we’re gonna use them I would rather like them to be foolproof. So Three mile island was not that big a success, and neither that modern either.

    “When the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident was worsening and it appeared that the reactor’s containment structure might rupture and release dangerous amounts of radioactive iodines and other radioactive material into the atmosphere, the Government rushed preparation of small bottles of a saturated solution of potassium iodide. The reactor’s containment structure did not rupture. The 237,013 bottles of saturated KI solution that were delivered to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — mostly too late to have been effective if the Three Mile Island accident had become an uncontained meltdown — were stored in secret in a warehouse, and were never used.”

    As for nuclear driven lorries? Real strange, is that really true?

  32. Brian Addams says:

    I’ve enjoyed reading these types of blogs. Exciting stuff! Solar energy has constantly been a fascination with me.

  33. Pain says:

    I am an American. Americans are severely brain damaged. They can see 36 posts, but they still post redundant information because they have a craving to ‘prove’ to others that they are ‘intelligent’…this type of attitude, is completely absurd and leads to mental atrophy. In this country of self-proclaimed ‘experts’, we cant clean our water, our children are obese, we are all addicted to pornography, and we still believe we are the teachers’ pets.

    America…sigh. What a dump.

  34. [...] Buzz nbspnbspHydro Electic Power Plant Explosion nbspnbspGet into Your Train nbspnbspRussian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants Back to English Russia Main Page for more articles like [...]

  35. [...] JamnbspnbspMagnet Lids nbspnbspHistory In the Russian Museum nbspnbspThe Aral Sea [updated]nbspnbspRussian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants nbspnbspThe Sauna Truck nbspnbspFrozen Something from [...]

  36. Sprmcandy says:

    I want one !

  37. R. Leal says:

    Awesome! Still in use?

Leave a Reply

  • Popular: